Google cancels its diversity meeting as staff face online harassment

By midian182 · 17 replies
Aug 11, 2017
Post New Reply
  1. The fallout from the manifesto that attacked Google’s diversity programs and argued women were underrepresented in tech because of biological differences is raging on.

    In the wake of the document coming to light and its author’s firing, CEO Sundar Pichai scheduled a company-wide meeting set to take place yesterday that was to address diversity issues.

    The 30-minute gathering was due to be streamed live to Google’s 60,000 employees around the world, but according to a report by Recode, Pichai canceled the event at the last minute because employees feared more online harassment after their names and questions appeared on several websites.

    “We had hoped to have a frank, open discussion today as we always do to bring us together and move forward. But our Dory questions [an internal Q&A tool for employees to submit questions before meetings] appeared externally this afternoon, and on some websites Googlers are now being named personally,” wrote Pichai to employees. “Googlers are writing in, concerned about their safety and worried they may be ‘outed’ publicly for asking a question in the Town Hall.”

    James Damore was fired on Monday for writing the memo, a move that enraged those who supported the engineer for speaking out against Google’s alleged “left bias.”

    Several conservative websites, social media accounts, and figures - including Breitbart and its former tech editor Milo Yiannopoulos – posted screenshots showing Twitter bios of eight Google employees who criticized Damore’s post.

    There were also other leaks showing discussions taking place on the internal Google+ platform, which exposed the employees who lambasted the manifesto. There have been reports of some users experiencing doxing (having their private information published online).

    Before being fired, Damore submitted a complaint to the National Labor Relations Board claiming that Google’s upper management was misrepresenting and shaming him in order to silence his complaints.

    Permalink to story.

     
  2. Uncle Al

    Uncle Al TS Evangelist Posts: 3,076   +1,761

    The sudden termination of an employee indicates a knee jerk reaction that rarely includes any kind of proper study and analysis of the situation. If the company did not bother to interview the employee, they acted blindly and ignorantly. The simply claim of diversity points toward the need for the employer to get a clear and complete picture of all sides before making any kind of decision. The claim, if true that Sundar Pichai cut short his honeymoon indicates a very weak CEO that does not trust his management team to handle the situation. The sudden canceling of an "all hands" meeting suggests that Google is aware of their mistakes and is trying to dodge more negative press. All in all, this appears to be once again typical Google, which should come to no surprise to anyone ......
     
    JamesSWD, p51d007, Misagt and 3 others like this.
  3. bolski

    bolski TS Member

    Wow, great tolerance and diversity by Google. Better to read the entire letter rather than just go by excerpts from it. The writer of the letter in no way was being mean, disrespectful or intolerant. If anything, he proved what he was writing about. Google isn't being tolerant at all.
     
  4. davislane1

    davislane1 Inquisitor Posts: 4,673   +3,697

    James Damore was fired on Monday for writing the memo, a move that enraged those who supported the engineer for speaking out against Google’s alleged “left bias.”

    "Alleged" as if we all haven't read the memo and observed Google's reaction to it.

    Reminds me of the mainstream news where video shows a "suspect" performing a criminal act but they try and paint the whole thing as having an element of doubt.
     
    namesrejected and p51d007 like this.
  5. trparky

    trparky TS Addict Posts: 216   +102

    Once again the Left has shown that they only have tolerance when it is their ideas. Tolerance my @ss.
     
    SirChocula, Nobina, EClyde and 3 others like this.
  6. Capaill

    Capaill TS Evangelist Posts: 401   +142

    I presume Google is actively hunting for whoever is posting these memos online. Taking internal documents and posting them on a public website has to be a breach of employment contract as well as an invasion of a person's right to privacy. I wouldn't say anything in an office environment if I thought someone was going to post it out of context (along with my personal details) on a website for the whole world to critique.
    And, agreed. Google took the shameful way out. Instead of investigating the employee and respecting his right to have an opinion, perhaps even using it as the basis for a meaningful discussion, they fired him for PR reasons.
     
    namesrejected and p51d007 like this.
  7. Nobina

    Nobina TS Evangelist Posts: 1,212   +691

    All the diversity they claim to have is forced by purposly driving white men out of the company while hiring people of different colors without them even being qualified for the job. That's what he said in his memo and that is out of line. What's the point of diversity then if it's not legit? Every company doing this will eventually ruin it self from the inside by hiring random people based on their skin colour (which is textbook racism).
     
  8. p51d007

    p51d007 TS Evangelist Posts: 1,226   +596

    Gotta love it with the alt-left cuts their own throat. "Oh we at Google are open and tolerant"...yeah, as long as you believe OUR LEFTIST views...go against the mother ship and it's off with your head!
     
  9. EClyde

    EClyde TS Evangelist Posts: 1,140   +360

    I am happy that almost all the posters get it. Only two think they do :)
     
  10. NicktheWVAHick

    NicktheWVAHick TS Booster Posts: 100   +74

    I am really enjoying all of this. What a bunch of hypocritical leftist *****s.
     
  11. wiyosaya

    wiyosaya TS Evangelist Posts: 1,635   +571

    It might have been different if all of Damore's arguments were based in sound science; however, after reading the memo, it is my opinion that his conclusions are based on nothing better than pseudo-science at best. That is the thing about arguments. They sound great, but anyone, on doing a bit of research, will find that the arguments, especially those citing biological differences, were bogus. This is where Damore crossed the line.

    I am not the only one who came to those same conclusions.

    https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/8/8/16106728/google-fired-engineer-anti-diversity-memo
    I have seen other articles on the net and at least one says that his paper is scientific; however, what they say that is scientific about the paper has noting to do with the biological differences between genders. As I see it, since his memo makes an attempt to utilize biological differences as one of the primary thrusts of his article, the rest of his article is suspect because he gets a primary thrust completely wrong - at least, it is not supported by scientific consensus.

    Maybe people out there do not want to hear about this, however, if he had left that out, he might have had a chance to get his point across which appears to be that gagme is far from gender equal - and this is not news as it has been in the public light before.

    To me, his article reeks of someone wanting their 15-minutes of fame, or profiting from the notoriety that such an article would give to someone who wrote it.

    To me, he also sounds like a whining little cry-baby because he thinks his "political" views are not respected. Well, if his biological differences argument were scientifically sound, there would be no question of his views being respected, however, there are those on either side of the fence who do still respect science and don't, like Damore, try to make a scientifically unfounded argument sound like fact. He purveys alternative facts that make his argument sound like biological differences are supported by sound science when they are not. Essentially, his is a liar at worst - deluding himself with this argument at best.

    No matter what "side" his views are on, his argument of biological differences are unscientifically sound.
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2017
    Capaill likes this.
  12. Magnums94

    Magnums94 TS Member Posts: 32   +18

    Leftists are miserable at this point. I mean, how low can you go? They have made themselves a walking joke already and no one really believes and takes seriously what these leftists have to say.

    James Damore wrote in his memo everything as it is, without being offensive (sorry, but I don''t count when triggered snowflakes are getting ''offended'') and by firing him, Google just confirmed all he was writing about and the leftist ideology as a whole.

    Google and leftists have lost in this battle already, the same way as these modern feminists, SJW's or BLM activists, there is nothing, EVER, that could back up ANY point that they may have, those groups are full of **** and that is a fact.
     
  13. wiyosaya

    wiyosaya TS Evangelist Posts: 1,635   +571

    If you say so.

    That some scientists have said that he was mostly correct shall I just say that in the scientific realm, mostly correct to NASA a few years back meant crashing a probe on Mars. The difference there was that NASA was able to admit where they went wrong.

    That he said what he said in a respectful manner does not give him a pass on scientific accuracy. In any scientific discussion, the lack of scientific accuracy will get everyone nowhere. Had he left out his unsubstantiated by science opinion that the lack of diversity in the work force was due at least in part to the scientifically unsubstantiated cause of "biological differences," his reception might have been much warmer than it was.

    But since science is not politically correct at the moment, we should all just throw science out door in favor of what? Conjecture, innuendo, sarcasm, personal opinion, belief?

    In any event, that gagme employees were doxed and their home addresses given out by places like Briebart speaks to the ideology of that side of the political spectrum. In other words, Briebart in as much said "if you won't accept what we said as truth, we will ram it down your throats in any manner we deem appropriate even if it puts people in mortal danger."
     
  14. JudasSheep

    JudasSheep TS Booster Posts: 96   +74

    I have to ask wiyosaya, what is your political stance? I consider myself a centrist who leans right. It depends on the issues being discussed and I reserve the right to change my opinion based on what is presented and how it aligns with my own ideas.

    That said, "In any event, that gagme employees were doxed and their home addresses given out by places like Briebart speaks to the ideology of that side of the political spectrum. In other words, Briebart in as much said "if you won't accept what we said as truth, we will ram it down your throats in any manner we deem appropriate even if it puts people in mortal danger."

    Yet this memo was released to the public and the author's full name was outed. You seem to think it's okay for "gagme" employees to release the memo and who wrote it, but it's not okay for a news outlet to post names of those who criticized the author, when they were taken from social media. Yet those same people most likely contributed to this mans firing.

    I think we get the point that you disagree with the memo as not being scientific and that is fine. I haven't even read the damn thing. I care about the topic because it is obvious Google's diversity is a fallacy and this person was right about it. This can happen to anyone who has a different opinion to the "left" where the "left" is the majority in any company. People should keep their feelings and their political opinions out of business.

    The Military had a saying while I was in. No politics, no religion and no sexual discussions while in the work place. People get offended too easily.
     
  15. wiyosaya

    wiyosaya TS Evangelist Posts: 1,635   +571

    Sounds like a great policy, to me!

    I really don't think my political viewpoint has any relevance to this. Why? Because political views are so polarized these days it is nearly impossible to discuss things openly and freely. In many instances, each side is completely dismissive of the other, and in that case, there is no room for reasonable discourse. Neither side, IMO, is better than the other. Both sides exhibit extremism, and as I see it, extremism, no matter what name it uses, is the real problem.

    As to his memo being released, I never said that I condoned its release. However, I see that as his responsibility. He wrote it, he distributed it via e-mail to his choice of recipients, and in all such transactions, there is the real possibility that it will go far beyond its intended audience. Do we know whether he said in the e-mail where he sent the memo, please do not distribute this?

    By contrast, if the employees that Briebart outed and published their home addresses had published that info themselves, willingly, say, to promote open discussion about the issue, then that would be a different story.

    But, as I see it, what Briebart has done is essentially commit an act that is perhaps just short of terrorism with the net effect of intimidation of the gagme employees. And, apparently, they did this in response to the fact that this guy, who admits that his political views are biased to the right, was fired from a company that had every right to do so. It was my mistake to make a generalization of Briebart as a voice of all on the right when where, IMO, Briebart's action lies is squarely in the realm of extremism, if not terrorism.

    In pretty much all of my posts I refer to google as gagme because I personally do not agree with their business practices. However, it is not news that employee base of gagme is not diversified. The following links make that quite obvious:
    http://time.com/3904408/google-workplace-diversity/
    http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/29/technology/google-diversity-report/index.html

    As someone with a foundation in science, if anyone tries to make a scientific argument that has no scientific foundation, am I supposed to accept that because the entity making the argument believes that they are correct? The entity making the scientific argument, as in all of mainstream science, is responsible for providing scientific evidence to support their claims whether that evidence be in the form of references to published papers, or, their own evidence from a scientific study of the topic. He had neither of these on the issue of biological differences as the basis of the lack of diversity. If he did have references, he cherry-picked them to support his view. Unfortunately, I cannot find the quote about it, but there is a great quote on scientific integrity that basically says that the researcher must question their own conclusions and consider that they may be wrong. Frankly, if he had done his research, he would have found that there was at the best, no consensus on biological differences, at worst, that it is, as in my quote above, routinely warned against as fundamentally unscientific.

    So what side am I on? I am on the side of science. As I said before, it is unfortunate that he chose to base part of his argument on a position that is regarded as "fundamentally unscientific". IMO, had he left that out, he just might have ignited the conversation that he hoped he would.
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2017
    JudasSheep likes this.
  16. JudasSheep

    JudasSheep TS Booster Posts: 96   +74

    I brought up your political stance just for the sake of asking and knowing. Your posts have a left leaning feel to me and I just wanted to get an understanding. From experience, the more left a person is, the harder it is to get them to see reason. However you do make a very good and valid point. Neither side on the extremes is typically able to see reason. I for one wouldn't shed a tear of both "sides" were to implode and stop existing because they have become so polarized as you pointed out. I think we (you and I) are in the same boat just on slightly different sides... Someone has to man the oars when the boat is too wide.

    Thank you for your considerate response. I had hoped it wouldn't devolve.
     
    wiyosaya likes this.
  17. wiyosaya

    wiyosaya TS Evangelist Posts: 1,635   +571

    As long as what replaces the current system is better for all, I would not shed a tear either if both sides imploded. Right now, and since I started voting for President in 1980 (Regan), all that seems to happen is that the dirt pile continually gets moved from one side of the white house lawn to the other. Energy, in particular, is an interest of mine, and we seem to get no where on the issue. Thankfully, private industry seems to be giving that issue a life outside of politics.

    You are right, I lean left, but more importantly, I like to think that I side with humanity, and though I consider myself passionate in my posts, I would hope that I will listen to reason - I am sure some here find that does not always ring true, though. :D I am making an effort to improve, though.

    I see so many posts here and elsewhere along the lines of this side this and that side that blah blah blah. Unfortunately, I think all the name calling is diversionary. Everyone thinks they are always right and it seems many think that they have a right to tell others what is right for them. I happen to think that as long as what I engage in is not destructive in nature or harmful to others, no one has a right to tell me what is right for me. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are all aspects that no one but ourselves can define for us - IMO.

    Edit: I do not know where you served - Thank you!
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2017
    JudasSheep likes this.
  18. wiyosaya

    wiyosaya TS Evangelist Posts: 1,635   +571

    I thought about this last night a bit more. I do not speak for Google, but my thoughts were along these lines.

    Damore (I'll ignore that his view is not supported by science for the moment) says that there are biological differences that support a lack of diversification in the work force with regard to, at least, gender.

    So, I have some questions on this?

    Just how is this different than the attitudes in Saudi Arabia, specifically, how they treat women in their culture?

    Or, how is this different than the prevailing attitude in Germany around WWII that they were biologically superior to everyone else?

    Or, from Sharia Law?

    Maybe there will be those that think that I am carrying this analogy a too far, but typically, if something like this is given the slightest traction, there are those who will latch onto it and carry it to the ends I suggest and perhaps even further to justify all kinds of vile ideals.

    Personally, I would be surprised if there were many here that actually want a society structured based on those ideals as they are totally against, at least as I see it, what we in the US value most. That would put those who are on the extremist side.

    From this viewpoint, I do not think Google had another choice but to fire him because keeping him employed there would be tantamount to agreeing that there are biological reasons behind the lack of diversity at Google.

    As I see it, the argument goes beyond First Amendment Rights but this aspect of it gets lost in that argument about First Amendment Rights.
     

Similar Topics

Add New Comment

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...